subject:"New\(\?\) Idea for Standalones"

Hi James,

I downloaded MKVtoolsNix and it opens on the second right-click.

As for my wife’s admin privileges, I will have to check later

Thanks very much

Roger


> On Mar 29, 2021, at 4:43 PM, james--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Roger,
> 
> Below is a link to the download page for MkvToolnix, an app for 
> packaging/modifying mkv files. It is not notarised and requires the steps we 
> have been suggesting to open (after copying it to your local machine from the 
> distribution disk image.)
> 
> https://www.fosshub.com/MKVToolNix.html
> 
> Also, the message you say you get on your wife’s machine is unfamiliar to me 
> and so I was wondering if her account is an admin privileged account. I 
> assume most of us on the list run admin accounts (if on a Mac) as we assume 
> we are savvy enough not to get caught out by malicious apps. If that is the 
> case, does trying to open your stack when logged in via an admin privileged 
> account bring up a different error dlog?
> 
> James
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Well, the thought plickins. I just also tried to open another standalone from 
Bob Earp and it failed to open. I am back to my usual state of befuddlement!

Roger


> On Mar 29, 2021, at 6:02 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> No Roger, the folder has nothing to do with it. The two right click process 
> will work wherever you unzip the new arrival. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your kind offer, Alex, but I think the process of opening an 
>> unblessed standalone for OS 11 has been solved. See my previous post in 
>> response to Scott. Turns out to be fairly simple . . . at least for this 
>> iteration of OS. In short, just right-click 2 times. It may also be 
>> important to do this from the Downloads folder. Not sure about that tho
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On 29/03/2021 22:11, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
 Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
 machine.
 
 Roger
>>> 
>>> I'm not exactly sure what message this is, or when it happens. But this 
>>> sounds like "Fortunately, ..." because I think it means you have an app 
>>> that hits a brickwall of permission on your own machine - so we can look at 
>>> it in more detail without bothering your wife's many multiple windows.
>>> 
>>> It's hard to describe these things in words - hence my suggestion of a Zoom 
>>> call where you can screen-share and let others watch (and suggest) while 
>>> you try it. If you want to try that with just me, please do (I'm 
>>> unavailable for the next hour, but free from approx 00:30 - 01:30 UK time), 
>>> or tomorrow almost any time, given some notice).
>>> Or contact me off-list and we'll find a time.
>>> Or suggest a time and someone else might be able to join in and help.
>>> 
>>> There are lots of motivated people wanting to help - or to find out what 
>>> they're going to need to tell their own users when those users upgrade to a 
>>> later MacOS. :-)
>>> 
>>> Alex.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread Dev via use-livecode

No Roger, the folder has nothing to do with it. The two right click process 
will work wherever you unzip the new arrival. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your kind offer, Alex, but I think the process of opening an 
> unblessed standalone for OS 11 has been solved. See my previous post in 
> response to Scott. Turns out to be fairly simple . . . at least for this 
> iteration of OS. In short, just right-click 2 times. It may also be important 
> to do this from the Downloads folder. Not sure about that tho
> 
> Roger
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29/03/2021 22:11, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>>> Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
>>> machine.
>>> 
>>> Roger
>> 
>> I'm not exactly sure what message this is, or when it happens. But this 
>> sounds like "Fortunately, ..." because I think it means you have an app that 
>> hits a brickwall of permission on your own machine - so we can look at it in 
>> more detail without bothering your wife's many multiple windows.
>> 
>> It's hard to describe these things in words - hence my suggestion of a Zoom 
>> call where you can screen-share and let others watch (and suggest) while you 
>> try it. If you want to try that with just me, please do (I'm unavailable for 
>> the next hour, but free from approx 00:30 - 01:30 UK time), or tomorrow 
>> almost any time, given some notice).
>> Or contact me off-list and we'll find a time.
>> Or suggest a time and someone else might be able to join in and help.
>> 
>> There are lots of motivated people wanting to help - or to find out what 
>> they're going to need to tell their own users when those users upgrade to a 
>> later MacOS. :-)
>> 
>> Alex.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Thanks for your kind offer, Alex, but I think the process of opening an 
unblessed standalone for OS 11 has been solved. See my previous post in 
response to Scott. Turns out to be fairly simple . . . at least for this 
iteration of OS. In short, just right-click 2 times. It may also be important 
to do this from the Downloads folder. Not sure about that tho

Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/03/2021 22:11, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
>> machine.
>> 
>> Roger
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what message this is, or when it happens. But this 
> sounds like "Fortunately, ..." because I think it means you have an app that 
> hits a brickwall of permission on your own machine - so we can look at it in 
> more detail without bothering your wife's many multiple windows.
> 
> It's hard to describe these things in words - hence my suggestion of a Zoom 
> call where you can screen-share and let others watch (and suggest) while you 
> try it. If you want to try that with just me, please do (I'm unavailable for 
> the next hour, but free from approx 00:30 - 01:30 UK time), or tomorrow 
> almost any time, given some notice).
> Or contact me off-list and we'll find a time.
> Or suggest a time and someone else might be able to join in and help.
> 
> There are lots of motivated people wanting to help - or to find out what 
> they're going to need to tell their own users when those users upgrade to a 
> later MacOS. :-)
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread james--- via use-livecode

Hi Roger,

Below is a link to the download page for MkvToolnix, an app for 
packaging/modifying mkv files. It is not notarised and requires the steps we 
have been suggesting to open (after copying it to your local machine from the 
distribution disk image.)

https://www.fosshub.com/MKVToolNix.html

Also, the message you say you get on your wife’s machine is unfamiliar to me 
and so I was wondering if her account is an admin privileged account. I assume 
most of us on the list run admin accounts (if on a Mac) as we assume we are 
savvy enough not to get caught out by malicious apps. If that is the case, does 
trying to open your stack when logged in via an admin privileged account bring 
up a different error dlog?

James

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Great Scott! (How often do you hear that?)

This works on second attempt but not the first. I verified this by trashing the 
first unzipped app and unzipping a second as you suggest. Here are the details:

On first right-click - Open, I got “"Testeroni” can’t be opened because Apple 
cannot check it for malicious software”. “This software needs to be updated. 
Contact the developer for more information.” Safari downloaded this file today 
at 3:54 PM from”& (you.com ) with 2 buttons: "Show in Finder" 
and “OK"

On second attempt, I got the same message with 3 buttons: “Open", "Show in 
Finder" and “Cancel” And “Open” works

Alleluia and Go figure!!

Thanks, Scott!

Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:33 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Roger,
> 
> I made a standalone from an empty stack (and one button that does nothing.)  
> It is 64 bit Mac. It is zipped. It isn’t in a DMG or any sort of installer. 
> It is NOT code signed. I have been using this app to test how opening 
> non-signed Mac Apps work. After (finally) opening the app I can throw it away 
> and double click the zipped original to get another app that hasn’t been 
> approved  if I want to try the process again.
> 
> You can find this app here:
> 
> http://traditionaltaekwondo.org/test/Testeroni.app.zip
> 
> 
> --
> Scott Morrow
> 
> Elementary Software
> (Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
> web   https://elementarysoftware.com/
> email sc...@elementarysoftware.com
> booth1-360-734-4701
> mobile   360-920-0715
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread scott--- via use-livecode

That symbol probably means it was compiled to run on an older (Motorola ?) 
processor… similar to what happens if you have a 32 bit app on Big Sur.
—
Scott

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/03/2021 22:11, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
>> machine.
>> 
>> Roger
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what message this is, or when it happens. But this 
> sounds like "Fortunately, ..." because I think it means you have an app that 
> hits a brickwall of permission on your own machine - so we can look at it in 
> more detail without bothering your wife's many multiple windows.
> 
> It's hard to describe these things in words - hence my suggestion of a Zoom 
> call where you can screen-share and let others watch (and suggest) while you 
> try it. If you want to try that with just me, please do (I'm unavailable for 
> the next hour, but free from approx 00:30 - 01:30 UK time), or tomorrow 
> almost any time, given some notice).
> Or contact me off-list and we'll find a time.
> Or suggest a time and someone else might be able to join in and help.
> 
> There are lots of motivated people wanting to help - or to find out what 
> they're going to need to tell their own users when those users upgrade to a 
> later MacOS. :-)
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread scott--- via use-livecode

Oops, meant to send that off-list.
—
Scott


> On Mar 29, 2021, at 3:33 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Roger,
> 
> I made a standalone from an empty stack (and one button that does nothing.)  
> It is 64 bit Mac. It is zipped. It isn’t in a DMG or any sort of installer. 
> It is NOT code signed. I have been using this app to test how opening 
> non-signed Mac Apps work. After (finally) opening the app I can throw it away 
> and double click the zipped original to get another app that hasn’t been 
> approved  if I want to try the process again.
> 
> You can find this app here:
> 
> http://traditionaltaekwondo.org/test/Testeroni.app.zip
> 
> 
> --
> Scott Morrow
> 
> Elementary Software
> (Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
> web   https://elementarysoftware.com/
> email sc...@elementarysoftware.com
> booth1-360-734-4701
> mobile   360-920-0715
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread scott--- via use-livecode

Hello Roger,

I made a standalone from an empty stack (and one button that does nothing.)  It 
is 64 bit Mac. It is zipped. It isn’t in a DMG or any sort of installer. It is 
NOT code signed. I have been using this app to test how opening non-signed Mac 
Apps work. After (finally) opening the app I can throw it away and double click 
the zipped original to get another app that hasn’t been approved  if I want to 
try the process again.

You can find this app here:

http://traditionaltaekwondo.org/test/Testeroni.app.zip


--
Scott Morrow

Elementary Software
(Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
web   https://elementarysoftware.com/
email sc...@elementarysoftware.com
booth1-360-734-4701
mobile   360-920-0715
--








___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones



On 29/03/2021 22:11, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
machine.

Roger


I'm not exactly sure what message this is, or when it happens. But this 
sounds like "Fortunately, ..." because I think it means you have an app 
that hits a brickwall of permission on your own machine - so we can look 
at it in more detail without bothering your wife's many multiple windows.


It's hard to describe these things in words - hence my suggestion of a 
Zoom call where you can screen-share and let others watch (and suggest) 
while you try it. If you want to try that with just me, please do (I'm 
unavailable for the next hour, but free from approx 00:30 - 01:30 UK 
time), or tomorrow almost any time, given some notice).

Or contact me off-list and we'll find a time.
Or suggest a time and someone else might be able to join in and help.

There are lots of motivated people wanting to help - or to find out what 
they're going to need to tell their own users when those users upgrade 
to a later MacOS. :-)


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:35 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:


> I think we're all on the same page here.
>

:thumbs_up

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode


On 3/29/21 1:20 PM, Craig Newman via use-livecode wrote:

For about eight users in my business I distribute standalones for desktop only, 
both Mac and Windows versions. These are developed on a Mac. Simple to update 
and make, simple to give away, simple to use.

That is the aspect of this thread that I do not understand, perhaps misreading 
that it is somehow problematic to do what I do without issue. I am certain I 
simply have this wrong.


If your Mac users are on Big Sur they'll have the problem. If they're on Catalina they might 
have the problem. If they're on Mojave, not so much.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)


Trevor DeVore wrote:

> We agree that LiveCode should include a sensible baseline for building
> a standalone. We also agree that they shouldn't try to write solutions
> for all possible ways that someone may need to distribute a
> standalone. My 2 cents is that LiveCode should provide a way for 3rd
> parties to expand on what happens when a standalone is being built.
> This is more than just turning off an option. Turning off an option
> would introduce an absence of behavior. I'm suggesting the addition of
> behavior that can occur during key points of the standalone building
> process.

Yeah, in my effort to try to minimize my TL/DRs I didn't include a 
detailed specification, using colloquialism where more precision may 
have been useful.


I'm assuming they'd do something similar to what we have now with the 
pre- and post-build messages.  When we consider those, the Plugins 
subsystem, pubsub, and the vast range of other IDE hooks, I feel pretty 
confident that they wouldn't suddenly change direction and make a 
locked-down hookless solution on this one.



> Perhaps all use cases can adequately be handled with the messages that
> are already sent once when a standalone builder finishes (e.g.
> savingStandalone and standaloneSaved).
>
> But, perhaps the standalone building process would be better served
> with additional, more granular callbacks, and maybe those callbacks
> are sent to a target other than the stack being saved. That is what
> I would like to be considered when modernizing the Standalone Builder.

Like that.


I think we're all on the same page here.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:56 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

>
> Here's the bottom of the post you were replying to:
>
>   One suitable solution in the box is all that's needed,
>   with the option for folks to turn it off if they prefer
>   using any other of the infinite variety of all possible
>   solutions.
>
>
> So yeah, I don't much mind whether we call them "hooks" or "options" or
> even "doilies" as long as it supports the core need right out of the
> box, without penalizing deeply-experienced professionals with specific
> tool preferences.
>

We agree that LiveCode should include a sensible baseline for building a
standalone. We also agree that they shouldn't try to write solutions for
all possible ways that someone may need to distribute a standalone. My 2
cents is that LiveCode should provide a way for 3rd parties to expand on
what happens when a standalone is being built. This is more than just
turning off an option. Turning off an option would introduce an absence of
behavior. I'm suggesting the addition of behavior that can occur during key
points of the standalone building process.

Perhaps all use cases can adequately be handled with the messages that are
already sent once when a standalone builder finishes (e.g. savingStandalone
and standaloneSaved).

But, perhaps the standalone building process would be better served with
additional, more granular callbacks, and maybe those callbacks are sent to
a target other than the stack being saved. That is what I would like to be
considered when modernizing the Standalone Builder.

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately it comes up with the “No Entry” sign on this 
machine.

Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/03/2021 21:23, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> I have to admit I haven’t had a lot of time to experiment yet on my wife’s 
>> computer as I've been busy here trying to communicate my problem. Also, my 
>> wife’s computer is busy helping her work from home, not to mention, her 
>> style is to have numerous windows open all the time. Drives me nuts!
>> 
>> I wish I could think of an unapproved Mac app I could download to my own 
>> machine to play with.
> 
> https://www.sonsothunder.com/devres/livecode/downloads/StackRunner.htm 
>  and 
> download something suitable.
> 
> This  is the old (and I think no longer functioning) stackRunner - but 
> although it doesn't appear to work properly (it is *very* old) it did come up 
> and ask me to approve it.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)


Trevor DeVore wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:24 PM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> Trevor DeVore wrote:
>>
>>  > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:31 PM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>  >> Add-ons to the product experience can be a useful temporary
>>  >> workaround for long-time users, but if we step back and look
>>  >> at the gestalt of the user experience they're not a true
>>  >> solution.
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > Do you think that LiveCode should have built in support for all of
>>  > the various installers such as DropDMG, InnoSetup, WIX, etc.?
>>
>> "All" is the biggest possible number, potentially infinite.  So
>> logically, of course the only answer is "no".
>
> And that is why I like hooks into the standalone building process :-)
>
> Provide the baseline solution but make it extensible so that
> developers who need more can integrate whatever they need into
> building a standalone. The less manual steps the better.

#GMTA

Here's the bottom of the post you were replying to:

 One suitable solution in the box is all that's needed,
 with the option for folks to turn it off if they prefer
 using any other of the infinite variety of all possible
 solutions.


So yeah, I don't much mind whether we call them "hooks" or "options" or 
even "doilies" as long as it supports the core need right out of the 
box, without penalizing deeply-experienced professionals with specific 
tool preferences.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones



On 29/03/2021 20:54, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:

On 3/29/2021 3:36 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:
there is some way to allow unsigned apps to run on all current and 
foreseeable versions of the desktop OSes


I think your assumption that you will be able - even via some horribly 
convoluted series of steps - to run unsigned and unnotarized apps on 
FUTURE versions of macOS is probably in error. From Apple's actions 
and statements, they very much are moving to a similar sandboxed, 
highly vetted, approved by Apple model for macOS as exists for iOS apps.


It's only an assumption for "the foreseeable versions". I do agree with 
you that in the long term this will, or might, become either impossible 
or so burdensome it's not worth it.


But at that point, we don't know what will be possible.  MacOS may by 
then be so tied up that it has become equivalent to iOS. The 
disappointing part of this thread, for me, was how quickly those in the 
know convinced me there was no chance of a 'runner' app for mobile (in 
particular, iOS). I think by the time it becomes infeasible to 
circumvent the protections on MacOS, it will also be infeasible to 
produce a signed 'general runner' app for it.


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones



On 29/03/2021 21:23, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

I have to admit I haven’t had a lot of time to experiment yet on my wife’s 
computer as I've been busy here trying to communicate my problem. Also, my 
wife’s computer is busy helping her work from home, not to mention, her style 
is to have numerous windows open all the time. Drives me nuts!

I wish I could think of an unapproved Mac app I could download to my own 
machine to play with.


https://www.sonsothunder.com/devres/livecode/downloads/StackRunner.htm 
and download something suitable.


This  is the old (and I think no longer functioning) stackRunner - but 
although it doesn't appear to work properly (it is *very* old) it did 
come up and ask me to approve it.


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

I have to admit I haven’t had a lot of time to experiment yet on my wife’s 
computer as I've been busy here trying to communicate my problem. Also, my 
wife’s computer is busy helping her work from home, not to mention, her style 
is to have numerous windows open all the time. Drives me nuts!

I wish I could think of an unapproved Mac app I could download to my own 
machine to play with.

:-)

Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 1:00 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger,
> 
> this is frustrating, isn't it !!
> 
> If I were you, I'd send an email to the list saying (something along the 
> lines of )
> 
>> I want to get to the bottom of this. I'm going to host a Zoom call on my 
>> wife's Mac at  where I will share my screen so 
>> you can all see what I'm doing, and I'll then accept suggestions of what to 
>> do/try.  Here's the key/invite ...
>> All welcome !!
>> 
> I'll do my best to attend - but since I don't own a Mac that can run anything 
> later than 10.13 I suspect I'll be a spectator, not a contributor.
> 
> Alex.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

I’m sure you’re right about this. And, If this be the case, I would ask for the 
work-around approach . . . a LiveCodeLight App downloadable from RunRev (or 
other approved source) that runs stacks but hides or strips the IDE.


Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 12:54 PM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think your assumption that you will be able - even via some horribly 
> convoluted series of steps - to run unsigned and unnotarized apps on FUTURE 
> versions of macOS is probably in error. From Apple's actions and statements, 
> they very much are moving to a similar sandboxed, highly vetted, approved by 
> Apple model for macOS as exists for iOS apps.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


Roger,

this is frustrating, isn't it !!

If I were you, I'd send an email to the list saying (something along the 
lines of )


I want to get to the bottom of this. I'm going to host a Zoom call on 
my wife's Mac at  where I will share my 
screen so you can all see what I'm doing, and I'll then accept 
suggestions of what to do/try.  Here's the key/invite ...

All welcome !!

I'll do my best to attend - but since I don't own a Mac that can run 
anything later than 10.13 I suspect I'll be a spectator, not a contributor.


Alex.

On 29/03/2021 20:43, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

Craig.

You and I are very much in the same boat as far as how we use LiveCode.

The problem is not constructing the standalones. LiveCode is superb in this regard. 
The problem is distributing Apple unapproved standalones. It seems I can no longer 
do that anymore as I used to. The problem is that opening an unapproved standalone 
on an other computer other than one’s own is difficult if not impossible for OS 
11.2. Other’s in this thread have offered that it still can be done albeit with a 
more convoluted process, and I am still trying to figure this out. e.g if I send a 
standalone to my wife (called StackOmatic) to share, we inevitably end up with the  
"You do not have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact 
your computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. I 
can’t seem to replicate the process that others have suggested to get to the “Open 
Anyway” button.

Roger


On Mar 29, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Craig Newman via use-livecode 
 wrote:

For about eight users in my business I distribute standalones for desktop only, 
both Mac and Windows versions. These are developed on a Mac. Simple to update 
and make, simple to give away, simple to use.

That is the aspect of this thread that I do not understand, perhaps misreading 
that it is somehow problematic to do what I do without issue. I am certain I 
simply have this wrong.

I do all this in the Community version. I do not sell apps at all, though I own 
an Indy license just as a way to help LC a little. So I wonder if I am a 
scofflaw. If everyone was on a Mac, I might have simply distributed updated 
stacks, and have LC resident on all the other machines. But of course, the fact 
that most use Windows makes that impossible, and I will not use a Windows 
machine unless I have to. Anyway, leaving the IDE open is risky.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


On 3/29/2021 3:36 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:
there is some way to allow unsigned apps to run on all current and 
foreseeable versions of the desktop OSes


I think your assumption that you will be able - even via some horribly 
convoluted series of steps - to run unsigned and unnotarized apps on 
FUTURE versions of macOS is probably in error. From Apple's actions and 
statements, they very much are moving to a similar sandboxed, highly 
vetted, approved by Apple model for macOS as exists for iOS apps.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Craig.

You and I are very much in the same boat as far as how we use LiveCode.

The problem is not constructing the standalones. LiveCode is superb in this 
regard. The problem is distributing Apple unapproved standalones. It seems I 
can no longer do that anymore as I used to. The problem is that opening an 
unapproved standalone on an other computer other than one’s own is difficult if 
not impossible for OS 11.2. Other’s in this thread have offered that it still 
can be done albeit with a more convoluted process, and I am still trying to 
figure this out. e.g if I send a standalone to my wife (called StackOmatic) to 
share, we inevitably end up with the  "You do not have permission to open the 
application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for 
assistance” with a simple “OK” button. I can’t seem to replicate the process 
that others have suggested to get to the “Open Anyway” button.

Roger

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Craig Newman via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> For about eight users in my business I distribute standalones for desktop 
> only, both Mac and Windows versions. These are developed on a Mac. Simple to 
> update and make, simple to give away, simple to use.
> 
> That is the aspect of this thread that I do not understand, perhaps 
> misreading that it is somehow problematic to do what I do without issue. I am 
> certain I simply have this wrong.
> 
> I do all this in the Community version. I do not sell apps at all, though I 
> own an Indy license just as a way to help LC a little. So I wonder if I am a 
> scofflaw. If everyone was on a Mac, I might have simply distributed updated 
> stacks, and have LC resident on all the other machines. But of course, the 
> fact that most use Windows makes that impossible, and I will not use a 
> Windows machine unless I have to. Anyway, leaving the IDE open is risky.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones




On 29/03/2021 19:20, Craig Newman via use-livecode wrote:

Roger.

For about eight users in my business I distribute standalones for desktop only, 
both Mac and Windows versions. These are developed on a Mac. Simple to update 
and make, simple to give away, simple to use.

That is the aspect of this thread that I do not understand, perhaps misreading 
that it is somehow problematic to do what I do without issue. I am certain I 
simply have this wrong.


Craig,

I think this all depends on your users, and which version(s) of 
MacOS/Windows they are using.


Both OSes require *either* signed apps, or that the user give permission 
to run unsigned apps (either doing that for each app, or once in the 
system settings). In the more recent versions (certainly of MacOS), the 
steps needed to do this have become increasingly well hidden, and the 
warning messages have become increasingly scary.


If you (i.e. your users) have been used to seeing these, and taking the 
steps around the hurdles, they probably do so naturally and without 
worrying (or, they've already down-tuned the protection in the settings 
and so no longer see any warnings for new apps).


In my case, the Macs I own are, like me, elderly, and hence restricted 
to MacOS 10.13 or older - and I barely notice; occasionally I have to 
right-click on an app and agree to it running. From Roger's description, 
this is much more intrusive in newer MacOS, and finding your way to the 
correct place to give that permission is non-trivial.


However, there is no doubt that there is some way to allow unsigned apps 
to run on all current and foreseeable versions of the desktop OSes, so 
if you have a fairly restricted audience, you can simply ignore the 
problems addressed in this thread and focus on getting the permissions 
properly changed for them.


Alex.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:24 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Trevor DeVore wrote:
>
>  > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:31 PM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>  >> Add-ons to the product experience can be a useful temporary
>  >> workaround for long-time users, but if we step back and look
>  >> at the gestalt of the user experience they're not a true solution.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Do you think that LiveCode should have built in support for all of
>  > the various installers such as DropDMG, InnoSetup, WIX, etc.?
>
> "All" is the biggest possible number, potentially infinite.  So
> logically, of course the only answer is "no".
>

And that is why I like hooks into the standalone building process :-)

Provide the baseline solution but make it extensible so that developers who
need more can integrate whatever they need into building a standalone. The
less manual steps the better.

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

Trevor DeVore wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:31 PM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Add-ons to the product experience can be a useful temporary
>> workaround for long-time users, but if we step back and look
>> at the gestalt of the user experience they're not a true solution.
>>
>
> Do you think that LiveCode should have built in support for all of
> the various installers such as DropDMG, InnoSetup, WIX, etc.?

"All" is the biggest possible number, potentially infinite.  So 
logically, of course the only answer is "no".

DMGs are native to the OS, as is the AppleScript used to automate making 
them look attractive.

LC has a reasonably nice Windows installer framework, which we all use 
every time we install LC.

I don't think anyone here is expecting LC or any other tool vendor to 
provide all possible solutions to a given problem.

One suitable solution in the box is all that's needed, with the option 
for folks to turn it off if they prefer using any other of the infinite 
variety of all possible solutions.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread Craig Newman via use-livecode

Roger.

For about eight users in my business I distribute standalones for desktop only, 
both Mac and Windows versions. These are developed on a Mac. Simple to update 
and make, simple to give away, simple to use.

That is the aspect of this thread that I do not understand, perhaps misreading 
that it is somehow problematic to do what I do without issue. I am certain I 
simply have this wrong.

I do all this in the Community version. I do not sell apps at all, though I own 
an Indy license just as a way to help LC a little. So I wonder if I am a 
scofflaw. If everyone was on a Mac, I might have simply distributed updated 
stacks, and have LC resident on all the other machines. But of course, the fact 
that most use Windows makes that impossible, and I will not use a Windows 
machine unless I have to. Anyway, leaving the IDE open is risky.

Someone not too long ago wondered why we could not give standalones to friends 
for use on their phones, that is, what difference does the platform make, if it 
is only for acquaintances. In mobile, I certainly see how this might be abused.

Craig

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Craig Newman  wrote:
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest, and have no idea what anyone 
> is talking about.
> 
> I make and update standalones regularly on my Mac, and distribute them to 
> many Windows and Mac desktop users in my company. All for “personal’ use.
> 
> Somewhere in the middle of all this, I thought that the issue was 
> distributing to mobile, and saw the problem, but then noticed that the issue 
> was distributing to desktop, and became confused
> 
> So though I may be breaking the law, what prevents anyone from doing what i 
> do?
> 
> What am i missing?
> 
> Craig
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 1:17 AM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for clarifying that for me!
>> 
>> As far as the license stuff goes on the community version I personally
>> think the community is allowed to supersede LiveCode if they feel like
>> investing the time.  It should not be able to be held back just to make
>> sure all of the new features are done by the LiveCode Team. As long
>> as it is kept public like the community version was designed to do.
>> 
>> JB
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> John et al,
>>> 
>>> To recap: 
>>> 
>>> My ultimate goal is to get support for RunRev to provide a LiveCodeLight 
>>> download that opens stacks but hides or strips the IDE. I can’t believe 
>>> this would be difficult in any way.
>>> 
>>> In the meantime, I am trying to recreate the old Standalone app method (See 
>>> Jacquelines’ post in this thread) that opens stacks. 2 or more OSs ago this 
>>> was extremely easy to do, but because of the increasing complexity of Apple 
>>> requirements (and Windows?) it is now quite difficult and I have yet to 
>>> succeed at it. Even if it is still possible, I shudder to think what they 
>>> will do next to further complicate our efforts to simple collaborate and 
>>> share with family and friends.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to all who are taking an interest.
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:14 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 I was thinking one of the reasons people were saying not to provide a
 scaled down version of the development system to do it was because
 they were afraid it would interfere with the license. But since you can
 do it according to some of you is proof you are allowed to automate
 the process and that should not interfere with the user license.
 
 JB
 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
> 
> If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach 
> their family into doing the two step process once on the first time 
> install.
> 
> If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app 
> that jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it 
> updated every time Apple makes a change. 
> 
> I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed 
> out, “This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so 
> this whole discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If 
> the amateurs can do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then 
> this puts the ball back in their court and allows them into the game with 
> out going through the Apple doorway.
> 
> Kelly
> 
>> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
>> easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
>> scaled down version of the development system then this one
>> step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
>> because people do not want to be bothered with t

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

matthias_livecode_150811 wrote:

> Don't blame Microsoft and Apple

I'm not sure anyone here is. Jumping through hoops is painful, of 
course, but I think the folks here recognize that having their data and 
devices compromised is even more painful.

> And purchasing a code signing certificate for Windows here in Germany
> was  also not very easy years ago, especially for independent
> developers.
> It was not just purchasing it in an online store. After purchase i had
> to proof my identity through a notary agency. Comodo contacted my
> lawyer/notary and asked for a confirmation that i am a real person.
> Therefor i had to visit the notary office, show my papers to get
> authenticated.  So i had not only pay for the certificate, but also
> for the authentication through the lawyer/notary.
> Thanks god, now Comodo is using public business registers for
> confirmation and luckily i am listed in one of them now. So the
> authenticaton process is much faster and without any additonal costs.

That's a valuable story.  It's good to see security taken seriously, and 
even better to see where the process is tailored over time as the 
balance between threats and remedies becomes ever more finely tuned to 
shift the burden to larger stakeholders with the resources to handle it 
well.

Once upon a time SSL certs were expensive and cumbersome to obtain.  Now 
we have projects like Let's Encrypt, which provide strong SSL certs 
automatically updated not just annually but every 90 days, for free.

The change was moving the burden from individual web site owners to 
bigger players who are also stakeholders, ISPs and ad-supported industry 
giants who need a safe web to thrive.  They have vast resources beyond 
what indies have to put on the problem, and centralized solutions can be 
handled by experts with good implementations and fewer errors.

I expect over time we'll see initiatives in the app space evolve this 
way as well, with OS vendors and other bigger stakeholders actively 
investing in ways to make it ever easier for indy devs to deploy safe 
software.

In a smaller but no less helpful way, Mark Waddingham's comment 
demonstrates the value of centralizing security process where practical:

   ...this is probably best done by improving the standalone
   building process (i.e. making it as easy as possible)
   rather than anything else.

> As a customer btw i really prefer secure software. I know that even
> with those security achievements software is not 100% secure, but more
> secure than without any notarization/code signing.

The listing of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) at 
CVEDetails.com is a good reminder of growth in both scope and 
sophistication of attacks:

https://www.cvedetails.com/product/156/Apple-Mac-Os-X.html?vendor_id=49

At first glance, one might see futility in the steady increase of CVEs 
against macOS growing nearly every year while Apple has made deployment 
ever more cumbersome.

But a brief pause to think about it reveals the deeper truth: imagine 
how many vulnerabilities would be exploited if OS vendors weren't adding 
hoops for deployment to jump through.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:31 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Trevor DeVore wrote:
>
>  > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:57 AM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>  >
>  >> TL/DR:
>  >>
>  >> We don't need a generic player.
>  >>
>  >> What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide
>  >> more complete tooling and better guidance for building a
>  >> modern standalone.
>  >
>  >
>  > An easy way to extend the standalone building process with plugins is
>  > a necessity IMO as well.
>
> Add-ons to the product experience can be a useful temporary workaround
> for long-time users, but if we step back and look at the gestalt of the
> user experience they're not a true solution.
>

Do you think that LiveCode should have built in support for all of the
various installers such as DropDMG, InnoSetup, WIX, etc.? You either have
to support all of them or provide a hook so the developer can extend the
process. Either that or require the developer to create their own
additional workflow for processing the standalone after the fact.

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread John Balgenorth via use-livecode

They will probably never take the time to be bothered with complaining
by not buying from Apple or Microsoft.  It would be easier for them to
not buy electricity from the power companies and that won’t happen
either.

JB

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 10:51 AM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 3/29/2021 12:28 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> In any case it is not as easy as it use to be and IMO, this door may be 
>> closing.
> You are 100% right. The door is closing and will eventually be closed unless 
> enough consumers of Apple (and Windows) products complain with their buying 
> power to Apple and Microsoft.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

Trevor DeVore wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:57 AM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> TL/DR:
>>
>> We don't need a generic player.
>>
>> What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide
>> more complete tooling and better guidance for building a
>> modern standalone.
>
>
> An easy way to extend the standalone building process with plugins is
> a necessity IMO as well.

Add-ons to the product experience can be a useful temporary workaround 
for long-time users, but if we step back and look at the gestalt of the 
user experience they're not a true solution:

The problem is tooling and knowledge necessary but not found in the product.

Whether the third-parties delivering essential tools are OS vendors or 
community members, both require knowing where to hunt down the solution, 
set it up, and use it.

Either way it's not in the box, so many won't know where to find it, and 
most newcomers won't know it even exists.

Third-party plugins are ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC for adding *supplemental 
capabilities and conveniences* to a product.

But they cannot be profitably relied on to provide a core requirement of 
a product's critical path of use.

When the product is a tool for building applications, nothing could be 
more integral to its mission than building standalones.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread matthias rebbe via use-livecode

Don't blame Microsoft and Apple
There is a reason why MS and Apple require such things. It is security.

If there weren't any "bad" people who try to hack, hijack or infect our 
computers using viruses, trojan or other ways, then it wouldn't be necessary 
either.

As a developer I am also not very happy with those security requirements, 
because building standalones for deployment take more time than it took several 
years ago.
And purchasing a code signing certificate for Windows here in Germany was  also 
not very easy years ago, especially for independent developers. 
It was not just purchasing it in an online store. After purchase i had to proof 
my identity through a notary agency. Comodo contacted my lawyer/notary and 
asked for a confirmation that i am a real person.
Therefor i had to visit the notary office, show my papers to get authenticated. 
 So i had not only pay for the certificate, but also for the authentication 
through the lawyer/notary. 
Thanks god, now Comodo is using public business registers for confirmation and 
luckily i am listed in one of them now. So the authenticaton process is much 
faster and without any additonal costs. 

As a customer btw i really prefer secure software. I know that even with those 
security achievements software is not 100% secure, but more secure than without 
any notarization/code signing.

-
Matthias Rebbe
Life Is Too Short For Boring Code

> Am 29.03.2021 um 19:01 schrieb Roger Guay via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Beautifully said, Rick! Especially your point about it being a PITA.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 9:36 AM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Perhaps improving standalone building should be put at
>> the top of the priority of things to improve for LiveCode.
>> 
>> I think people are very frustrated that they are having
>> great difficulties in building a standalone. A process that
>> used to be relatively simple is now way too complex.
>> 
>> Many LC users want to be able to create their application,
>> and deploy it quickly to their own computers, or to give
>> away to their family members.  They are not interested
>> in inserting Apple or other corporations into their personal
>> programming loop, and a lot of us feel the same way.
>> 
>> No one wants to deal with having to create bundle ids
>> or other corporate nonsense.  (Option for a unique random
>> bundle id generator here?)
>> 
>> I believe users want LC to step up it’s game in dealing
>> with these issues so the deployment experience is an
>> enjoyable one, and not a PITA.
>> 
>> Successfully addressing this problem helps everyone!
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents for the day.  ;-)
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree that 
>>> standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as all 
>>> platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However, this 
>>> is probably best done by improving the standalone building process (i.e. 
>>> making it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.
>>> 
>>> Warmest Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mark.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
>>> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:57 AM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> TL/DR:
>
> We don't need a generic player.
>
> What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide more complete
> tooling and better guidance for building a modern standalone.
>

An easy way to extend the standalone building process with plugins is a
necessity IMO as well. For example, when packaging an app with Levure you
can add in Helpers to further customize the output generated when packaging
an app for distribution. In addition to handling signing, notarizing, and
stapling, one can generate a DMG using DropDMG, create an InnoSetup
installer script, creat a WIX installer script (creates a Windows installer
file that IT departments love), etc.

LiveCode doesn't need to build support for all of these in the SB, but it
should provide hooks so that plugins can further customize the process.

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Beautifully said, Rick! Especially your point about it being a PITA.

Thanks!


> On Mar 29, 2021, at 9:36 AM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Perhaps improving standalone building should be put at
> the top of the priority of things to improve for LiveCode.
> 
> I think people are very frustrated that they are having
> great difficulties in building a standalone. A process that
> used to be relatively simple is now way too complex.
> 
> Many LC users want to be able to create their application,
> and deploy it quickly to their own computers, or to give
> away to their family members.  They are not interested
> in inserting Apple or other corporations into their personal
> programming loop, and a lot of us feel the same way.
> 
> No one wants to deal with having to create bundle ids
> or other corporate nonsense.  (Option for a unique random
> bundle id generator here?)
> 
> I believe users want LC to step up it’s game in dealing
> with these issues so the deployment experience is an
> enjoyable one, and not a PITA.
> 
> Successfully addressing this problem helps everyone!
> 
> Just my 2 cents for the day.  ;-)
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
>> 
>> In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree that 
>> standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as all 
>> platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However, this is 
>> probably best done by improving the standalone building process (i.e. making 
>> it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.
>> 
>> Warmest Regards,
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
>> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


On 3/29/2021 12:28 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

In any case it is not as easy as it use to be and IMO, this door may be closing.
You are 100% right. The door is closing and will eventually be closed 
unless enough consumers of Apple (and Windows) products complain with 
their buying power to Apple and Microsoft.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

2021-03-29 Thread Brian Milby via use-livecode

The days of distributing apps without a cost to the developer are unfortunately 
over (Mac/Win).  If you want someone to be able to open an app on their Mac 
without jumping through hoops, then you need to be a paid developer and do the 
sign/notarize dance.  LC could help automate parts of the process, but getting 
the certificates seems to require some manual steps.  First advanced session in 
LCG covered it last week (but since I don’t do it, I did not fully pay 
attention to all of the details).

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> YES . . . What he said!
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 8:55 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> TL/DR:
>> 
>> We don't need a generic player.
>> 
>> What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide more complete 
>> tooling and better guidance for building a modern standalone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - more complete version 
>> 
>> 
>> Background
>> --
>> 
>> This thread, and many others like it, didn't start with a desire for a 
>> player.  That was merely a response to the challenges of building 
>> standalones.
>> 
>> Building standalones is the point of LiveCode, the culmination of everything 
>> in LC's user experience.
>> 
>> And it's become a pain point for most, early-prohibitive for some.
>> 
>> OS changes are of course not LC's fault.  But they are LC's opportunity, if 
>> the company wants to maintain its place as the easiest solution for making 
>> apps.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Last Great Deployment Change
>> 
>> 
>> Back in the early days, the IDE's Standalone Builder didn't provide any 
>> support for document associations, creator codes, or other essentials we now 
>> take for granted.  It was expected we'd open some dev tool from Apple 
>> (ResEdit) to set those up.
>> 
>> LC Ltd recognized those steps were cumbersome, and often error-prone where 
>> they were being done at all.
>> 
>> So they took the time to completely redesign the Standalone Builder to 
>> include support for nearly every detail apps need for solid deployment.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Next Great Deployment Change
>> 
>> 
>> Many if not most deployment tooling required by OSes are command-line apps, 
>> lending themselves well to being called from another program, such as LC's 
>> Standalone Builder.
>> 
>> Automate everything possible.
>> 
>> And where a step can't be automated, guidance and be provided, such as a 
>> direct link right in the SB's UI to the necessary steps for completing the 
>> process, laid out with sufficient clarity and detail to allow the user to 
>> complete the build with confidence.
>> 
>> If a standalone building step is essential, it needs to be handled in the 
>> Standalone Builder.
>> 
>> Use direct automation where possible, or a direct link in the UI to 
>> step-by-step instructions needed to complete the task.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Business Case
>> -
>> As we've seen here and many other threads like it from time to time, as long 
>> as building a standalone in LC is characterized by confusion and dread, 
>> people will seek alternatives.
>> 
>> Any alternative either compromises LC's revenue model (based as it is around 
>> standalone licensing), or eliminates it (if LC is just as hard to use as 
>> anything else, why not use anything else?).
>> 
>> No option provides as much return on investment as focusing on updating the 
>> Standalone Builder to be as simple and graceful as it can possibly be.
>> 
>> LC has a strong advantage with its language, made a nearly unbeatable with 
>> its integrated GUI object model.
>> 
>> Bring deployment up to par with the rest of the experience, and LC has a 
>> chance for a good life ahead, slowing attrition rates while accelerating 
>> growth.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard Gaskin
>> Fourth World Systems
>> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>> 
>> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


On 3/29/2021 12:36 PM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote:

Many LC users want to be able to create their application,
and deploy it quickly to their own computers, or to give
away to their family members.  They are not interested
in inserting Apple or other corporations into their personal
programming loop, and a lot of us feel the same way.

The real people to make this very valid complaint to is Apple and Microsoft.

They are the reason why Standalone building is so complex. They are 
actively changing their operating systems to make it harder and harder 
(if not impossible) to build and app to just give to a family member 
without inserting them (Apple and/or Microsoft) into the loop.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


On 3/29/2021 12:15 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree 
that standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years 
as all platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. 
However, this is probably best done by improving the standalone 
building process (i.e. making it as easy as possible) rather than 
anything else. 


I complete agree that enhanced standalone building (vs any sort of 
player other than LiveCode itself as is) is the way to go - as Richard's 
new thread discusses.


Sadly, one thing I don't think we'll ever get back is single platform 
building. I started off in LC building for macOS and Widows (and 
sometime Linux) on Windows. And that was wonderful and super convenient 
to be able to do that. Then along came code signing requirements and I 
could (and can) still built on 1 platform for several, but I must code 
sign on each. And then Apple introduced the notarization requirement, 
yet one more thing that required platform differentiation.


What I would not give to get back to click one button and get code 
signed, notarized, and whatever to heck else standalones for all my 
deployment platforms all on a single platform (preferably Windows for me)!


I just think that the OS vendors will never let us get back to that.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode

Unfortunately nothing can replace the requirement for an Apple developer 
account on Mac, which is the reason for the request here. But I'd love to 
see notarization and stapling built in.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 29, 2021 11:17:06 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
 wrote:


In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree
that standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as
all platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However,
this is probably best done by improving the standalone building process
(i.e. making it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

YES . . . What he said!

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 8:55 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> TL/DR:
> 
> We don't need a generic player.
> 
> What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide more complete 
> tooling and better guidance for building a modern standalone.
> 
> 
> 
> - more complete version 
> 
> 
> Background
> --
> 
> This thread, and many others like it, didn't start with a desire for a 
> player.  That was merely a response to the challenges of building standalones.
> 
> Building standalones is the point of LiveCode, the culmination of everything 
> in LC's user experience.
> 
> And it's become a pain point for most, early-prohibitive for some.
> 
> OS changes are of course not LC's fault.  But they are LC's opportunity, if 
> the company wants to maintain its place as the easiest solution for making 
> apps.
> 
> 
> 
> The Last Great Deployment Change
> 
> 
> Back in the early days, the IDE's Standalone Builder didn't provide any 
> support for document associations, creator codes, or other essentials we now 
> take for granted.  It was expected we'd open some dev tool from Apple 
> (ResEdit) to set those up.
> 
> LC Ltd recognized those steps were cumbersome, and often error-prone where 
> they were being done at all.
> 
> So they took the time to completely redesign the Standalone Builder to 
> include support for nearly every detail apps need for solid deployment.
> 
> 
> 
> The Next Great Deployment Change
> 
> 
> Many if not most deployment tooling required by OSes are command-line apps, 
> lending themselves well to being called from another program, such as LC's 
> Standalone Builder.
> 
> Automate everything possible.
> 
> And where a step can't be automated, guidance and be provided, such as a 
> direct link right in the SB's UI to the necessary steps for completing the 
> process, laid out with sufficient clarity and detail to allow the user to 
> complete the build with confidence.
> 
> If a standalone building step is essential, it needs to be handled in the 
> Standalone Builder.
> 
> Use direct automation where possible, or a direct link in the UI to 
> step-by-step instructions needed to complete the task.
> 
> 
> 
> The Business Case
> -
> As we've seen here and many other threads like it from time to time, as long 
> as building a standalone in LC is characterized by confusion and dread, 
> people will seek alternatives.
> 
> Any alternative either compromises LC's revenue model (based as it is around 
> standalone licensing), or eliminates it (if LC is just as hard to use as 
> anything else, why not use anything else?).
> 
> No option provides as much return on investment as focusing on updating the 
> Standalone Builder to be as simple and graceful as it can possibly be.
> 
> LC has a strong advantage with its language, made a nearly unbeatable with 
> its integrated GUI object model.
> 
> Bring deployment up to par with the rest of the experience, and LC has a 
> chance for a good life ahead, slowing attrition rates while accelerating 
> growth.
> 
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> 
> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread Rick Harrison via use-livecode

Hi Mark,

Perhaps improving standalone building should be put at
the top of the priority of things to improve for LiveCode.

I think people are very frustrated that they are having
great difficulties in building a standalone. A process that
used to be relatively simple is now way too complex.

Many LC users want to be able to create their application,
and deploy it quickly to their own computers, or to give
away to their family members.  They are not interested
in inserting Apple or other corporations into their personal
programming loop, and a lot of us feel the same way.

No one wants to deal with having to create bundle ids
or other corporate nonsense.  (Option for a unique random
bundle id generator here?)

I believe users want LC to step up it’s game in dealing
with these issues so the deployment experience is an
enjoyable one, and not a PITA.

Successfully addressing this problem helps everyone!

Just my 2 cents for the day.  ;-)

Rick


> 
> In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree that 
> standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as all 
> platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However, this is 
> probably best done by improving the standalone building process (i.e. making 
> it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Craig,

I apologize for the confusion. I tended to shift focus throughout this thread.

I too have, in the past, made and distributed standalones with great ease. But 
recently Apple and perhaps others have made it very difficult to do this as 
they are now requiring(?) that one be an Apple developer with an increasingly 
complex process for certifying apps for distribution.

In this thread, others have claimed that one can still do this (build 
distributable standalones w/o being an Apple developer etc.) with a slightly 
more convoluted process which I have not yet been able to replicate on Mac OS 
11.2. I’m still working on it. In any case it is not as easy as it use to be 
and IMO, this door may be closing.

All I want is a simple reliable, repeatable easy to use method/process for 
sharing stacks or Standalones with friends, family and colleagues without 
having to become an Apple developer. 

So Craig, I would appreciate knowing more about your process.


HTH,

Roger

> I make and update standalones regularly on my Mac, and distribute them to 
> many Windows and Mac desktop users in my company. All for “personal’ use.
> 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread John Balgenorth via use-livecode

And another good reason not to kick sand in LC’s face is they appear
to be the only ones who have invested the money and time for the
free community version to exist as it is today with the many features
it has now.  Think about if before you become so cheap & selfish that
you try to destroy them.

JB

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 9:16 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2021-03-27 22:22, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
>> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license
>> agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do
>> things that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the
>> license agreement; we all want LC to prosper.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I feel I must explicitly point out at this point that, in addition to 
> forbidding creation of LiveCode-IDE-like applications, the commercial license 
> agreement also explicitly prohibit generic player apps (or indeed any player 
> app which allows a non-commercially licensed user to access commercial 
> features).
> 
> I strongly recommend reviewing section 3 of the (commercial) license 
> agreement for full details. The reason these clauses are there is to ensure 
> we don't end up in a situation where we only ever sell one LC license a year: 
> to a person who creates and distributes a player app and an automated build 
> service using a business license to spit out standalones for everyone else 
> who is using Community.
> 
> In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree that 
> standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as all 
> platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However, this is 
> probably best done by improving the standalone building process (i.e. making 
> it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread Mark Waddingham via use-livecode


On 2021-03-27 22:22, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:

Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license
agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do
things that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the
license agreement; we all want LC to prosper.


Indeed.

I feel I must explicitly point out at this point that, in addition to 
forbidding creation of LiveCode-IDE-like applications, the commercial 
license agreement also explicitly prohibit generic player apps (or 
indeed any player app which allows a non-commercially licensed user to 
access commercial features).


I strongly recommend reviewing section 3 of the (commercial) license 
agreement for full details. The reason these clauses are there is to 
ensure we don't end up in a situation where we only ever sell one LC 
license a year: to a person who creates and distributes a player app and 
an automated build service using a business license to spit out 
standalones for everyone else who is using Community.


In terms of the general thrust behind this thread - I completely agree 
that standalone building has become tortuous over the last few years as 
all platforms add more and more hoops you have to jump through. However, 
this is probably best done by improving the standalone building process 
(i.e. making it as easy as possible) rather than anything else.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)


TL/DR:

We don't need a generic player.

What we need is an updated Standalone Builder, to provide more complete 
tooling and better guidance for building a modern standalone.




- more complete version 


Background
--

This thread, and many others like it, didn't start with a desire for a 
player.  That was merely a response to the challenges of building 
standalones.


Building standalones is the point of LiveCode, the culmination of 
everything in LC's user experience.


And it's become a pain point for most, early-prohibitive for some.

OS changes are of course not LC's fault.  But they are LC's opportunity, 
if the company wants to maintain its place as the easiest solution for 
making apps.




The Last Great Deployment Change


Back in the early days, the IDE's Standalone Builder didn't provide any 
support for document associations, creator codes, or other essentials we 
now take for granted.  It was expected we'd open some dev tool from 
Apple (ResEdit) to set those up.


LC Ltd recognized those steps were cumbersome, and often error-prone 
where they were being done at all.


So they took the time to completely redesign the Standalone Builder to 
include support for nearly every detail apps need for solid deployment.




The Next Great Deployment Change


Many if not most deployment tooling required by OSes are command-line 
apps, lending themselves well to being called from another program, such 
as LC's Standalone Builder.


Automate everything possible.

And where a step can't be automated, guidance and be provided, such as a 
direct link right in the SB's UI to the necessary steps for completing 
the process, laid out with sufficient clarity and detail to allow the 
user to complete the build with confidence.


If a standalone building step is essential, it needs to be handled in 
the Standalone Builder.


Use direct automation where possible, or a direct link in the UI to 
step-by-step instructions needed to complete the task.




The Business Case
-
As we've seen here and many other threads like it from time to time, as 
long as building a standalone in LC is characterized by confusion and 
dread, people will seek alternatives.


Any alternative either compromises LC's revenue model (based as it is 
around standalone licensing), or eliminates it (if LC is just as hard to 
use as anything else, why not use anything else?).


No option provides as much return on investment as focusing on updating 
the Standalone Builder to be as simple and graceful as it can possibly be.


LC has a strong advantage with its language, made a nearly unbeatable 
with its integrated GUI object model.


Bring deployment up to par with the rest of the experience, and LC has a 
chance for a good life ahead, slowing attrition rates while accelerating 
growth.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-29 Thread Craig Newman via use-livecode

I have been following this thread with interest, and have no idea what anyone 
is talking about.

I make and update standalones regularly on my Mac, and distribute them to many 
Windows and Mac desktop users in my company. All for “personal’ use.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, I thought that the issue was distributing 
to mobile, and saw the problem, but then noticed that the issue was 
distributing to desktop, and became confused

So though I may be breaking the law, what prevents anyone from doing what i do?

What am i missing?

Craig

> On Mar 29, 2021, at 1:17 AM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that for me!
> 
> As far as the license stuff goes on the community version I personally
> think the community is allowed to supersede LiveCode if they feel like
> investing the time.  It should not be able to be held back just to make
> sure all of the new features are done by the LiveCode Team. As long
> as it is kept public like the community version was designed to do.
> 
> JB
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> John et al,
>> 
>> To recap: 
>> 
>> My ultimate goal is to get support for RunRev to provide a LiveCodeLight 
>> download that opens stacks but hides or strips the IDE. I can’t believe this 
>> would be difficult in any way.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I am trying to recreate the old Standalone app method (See 
>> Jacquelines’ post in this thread) that opens stacks. 2 or more OSs ago this 
>> was extremely easy to do, but because of the increasing complexity of Apple 
>> requirements (and Windows?) it is now quite difficult and I have yet to 
>> succeed at it. Even if it is still possible, I shudder to think what they 
>> will do next to further complicate our efforts to simple collaborate and 
>> share with family and friends.
>> 
>> Thanks to all who are taking an interest.
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:14 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I was thinking one of the reasons people were saying not to provide a
>>> scaled down version of the development system to do it was because
>>> they were afraid it would interfere with the license. But since you can
>>> do it according to some of you is proof you are allowed to automate
>>> the process and that should not interfere with the user license.
>>> 
>>> JB
>>> 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach 
 their family into doing the two step process once on the first time 
 install.
 
 If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app 
 that jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it 
 updated every time Apple makes a change. 
 
 I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed out, 
 “This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so this 
 whole discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If the 
 amateurs can do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then this 
 puts the ball back in their court and allows them into the game with out 
 going through the Apple doorway.
 
 Kelly
 
> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
> easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
> scaled down version of the development system then this one
> step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
> because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.
> 
> JB
> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  
>> I found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time 
>> meets with failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second 
>> time gives a second dialog that will allow it to open.
>> 
>> —
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife 
>>> on her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick 
>>> Look Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share 
>>> - Copy - Speech
>>> 
>>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do 
>>> not have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact 
>>> your computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple 
>>> “OK” button. Dead end as before!
>>> 
>>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in th

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread John Balgenorth via use-livecode

Thanks for clarifying that for me!

As far as the license stuff goes on the community version I personally
think the community is allowed to supersede LiveCode if they feel like
investing the time.  It should not be able to be held back just to make
sure all of the new features are done by the LiveCode Team. As long
as it is kept public like the community version was designed to do.

JB

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> John et al,
> 
> To recap: 
> 
> My ultimate goal is to get support for RunRev to provide a LiveCodeLight 
> download that opens stacks but hides or strips the IDE. I can’t believe this 
> would be difficult in any way.
> 
> In the meantime, I am trying to recreate the old Standalone app method (See 
> Jacquelines’ post in this thread) that opens stacks. 2 or more OSs ago this 
> was extremely easy to do, but because of the increasing complexity of Apple 
> requirements (and Windows?) it is now quite difficult and I have yet to 
> succeed at it. Even if it is still possible, I shudder to think what they 
> will do next to further complicate our efforts to simple collaborate and 
> share with family and friends.
> 
> Thanks to all who are taking an interest.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:14 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I was thinking one of the reasons people were saying not to provide a
>> scaled down version of the development system to do it was because
>> they were afraid it would interfere with the license. But since you can
>> do it according to some of you is proof you are allowed to automate
>> the process and that should not interfere with the user license.
>> 
>> JB
>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach 
>>> their family into doing the two step process once on the first time install.
>>> 
>>> If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app that 
>>> jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it updated 
>>> every time Apple makes a change. 
>>> 
>>> I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed out, 
>>> “This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so this 
>>> whole discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If the 
>>> amateurs can do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then this 
>>> puts the ball back in their court and allows them into the game with out 
>>> going through the Apple doorway.
>>> 
>>> Kelly
>>> 
 On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
 easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
 scaled down version of the development system then this one
 step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
 because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.
 
 JB
 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  
> I found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time 
> meets with failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second 
> time gives a second dialog that will allow it to open.
> 
> —
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
>> her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
>> Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy 
>> - Speech
>> 
>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do 
>> not have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
>> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
>> button. Dead end as before!
>> 
>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the 
>> Security and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow 
>> a one time opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
>> 
>> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
>> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
>> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
>> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to 
>> share stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous 
>> hoops that Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
>> 
>> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
>> without the IDE would be the best way to go to share

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

John et al,

To recap: 

My ultimate goal is to get support for RunRev to provide a LiveCodeLight 
download that opens stacks but hides or strips the IDE. I can’t believe this 
would be difficult in any way.

In the meantime, I am trying to recreate the old Standalone app method (See 
Jacquelines’ post in this thread) that opens stacks. 2 or more OSs ago this was 
extremely easy to do, but because of the increasing complexity of Apple 
requirements (and Windows?) it is now quite difficult and I have yet to succeed 
at it. Even if it is still possible, I shudder to think what they will do next 
to further complicate our efforts to simple collaborate and share with family 
and friends.

Thanks to all who are taking an interest.

Roger



> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:14 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I was thinking one of the reasons people were saying not to provide a
> scaled down version of the development system to do it was because
> they were afraid it would interfere with the license. But since you can
> do it according to some of you is proof you are allowed to automate
> the process and that should not interfere with the user license.
> 
> JB
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach their 
>> family into doing the two step process once on the first time install.
>> 
>> If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app that 
>> jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it updated 
>> every time Apple makes a change. 
>> 
>> I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed out, 
>> “This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so this whole 
>> discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If the amateurs 
>> can do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then this puts the 
>> ball back in their court and allows them into the game with out going 
>> through the Apple doorway.
>> 
>> Kelly
>> 
>>> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
>>> easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
>>> scaled down version of the development system then this one
>>> step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
>>> because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.
>>> 
>>> JB
>>> 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 
 I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  I 
 found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time meets 
 with failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second time gives 
 a second dialog that will allow it to open.
 
 —
 Scott
 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
> her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
> Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy 
> - Speech
> 
> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do 
> not have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
> button. Dead end as before!
> 
> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
> and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
> opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
> 
> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to 
> share stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops 
> that Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
> 
> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
> without the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, 
> family and colleagues.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
>> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open 
>> the app.
>> —
>> Scott 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscri

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread John Balgenorth via use-livecode

I was thinking one of the reasons people were saying not to provide a
scaled down version of the development system to do it was because
they were afraid it would interfere with the license. But since you can
do it according to some of you is proof you are allowed to automate
the process and that should not interfere with the user license.

JB

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach their 
> family into doing the two step process once on the first time install.
> 
> If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app that 
> jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it updated 
> every time Apple makes a change. 
> 
> I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed out, 
> “This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so this whole 
> discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If the amateurs 
> can do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then this puts the 
> ball back in their court and allows them into the game with out going through 
> the Apple doorway.
> 
> Kelly
> 
>> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
>> easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
>> scaled down version of the development system then this one
>> step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
>> because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.
>> 
>> JB
>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  I 
>>> found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time meets 
>>> with failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second time gives 
>>> a second dialog that will allow it to open.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Scott
>>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
  wrote:

 Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
 her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
 Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - 
 Speech

 Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
 response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
 have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
 computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
 button. Dead end as before!

 Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
 and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
 opening, I found nothing of the sort. 

 So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
 building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
 solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
 reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
 stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
 Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….

 Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
 without the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, 
 family and colleagues.

 Roger

>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
> 
> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
> app.
> —
> Scott 

 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Dev via use-livecode

If it works, the upside is that anyone can do it themselves and coach their 
family into doing the two step process once on the first time install.

If it doesn’t work, we need to get a real developer to make a real app that 
jumps through Apple’s hoops. And then the developer has to keep it updated 
every time Apple makes a change. 

I agree this whole thing is a bother, but as other posts have pointed out, 
“This is not the good old days and security is not going away” so this whole 
discussion is trying to find the narrowest point to cross. If the amateurs can 
do it themselves with a two step magic incantation, then this puts the ball 
back in their court and allows them into the game with out going through the 
Apple doorway.

Kelly

> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 9:54 PM, John Balgenorth via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
> easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
> scaled down version of the development system then this one
> step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
> because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.
> 
> JB
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  I 
>> found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time meets 
>> with failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second time gives a 
>> second dialog that will allow it to open.
>> 
>> —
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
>>> her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
>>> Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - 
>>> Speech
>>> 
>>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
>>> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
>>> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
>>> button. Dead end as before!
>>> 
>>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
>>> and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
>>> opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
>>> 
>>> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
>>> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
>>> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
>>> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
>>> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
>>> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
>>> without the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, 
>>> family and colleagues.
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
 right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
 app.
 —
 Scott 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread John Balgenorth via use-livecode

I may have got lost on this subject but if his goal was to make it
easy for people to open his app by doing something like using a
scaled down version of the development system then this one
step of doing it twice is a valid reason for using what he wanted
because people do not want to be bothered with things like that.

JB

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:41 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  I 
> found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time meets with 
> failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second time gives a 
> second dialog that will allow it to open.
> 
> —
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on her 
>> iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment 
>> - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech
>> 
>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
>> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
>> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. 
>> Dead end as before!
>> 
>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
>> and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
>> opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
>> 
>> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
>> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
>> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
>> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
>> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
>> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
>> 
>> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks without 
>> the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, family and 
>> colleagues.
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
>>> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
>>> app.
>>> —
>>> Scott 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread scott--- via use-livecode


I may have described it incorrectly. After re-testing here on OS 11.2.3  I 
found that it required two tries. Trying to open it the first time meets with 
failure. But Right clicking and choosing “Open” the second time gives a second 
dialog that will allow it to open.

—
Scott

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on her 
> iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment 
> - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech
> 
> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer 
> or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. Dead end 
> as before!
> 
> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security and 
> Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
> opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
> 
> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
> 
> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks without 
> the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, family and 
> colleagues.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
>> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
>> app.
>> —
>> Scott 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

James, Kelly and Brian,

Thanks for sticking with me on this. 

Perhaps, to smooth out this process, I should look for an uncertified app to 
download to my own machine, instead of working off of her machine. Have you any 
suggestions for that?

Answers to some of your question:
I emailed a standalone app  to my wife called StackOmatic that opens stacks 
(works on my machine)
I tried double and right clicking from the email then... 
I saved it to her Desktop and also to her Downloads where I tired both double 
clicking and right clicking again 
In every case, I end up with the dreaded "You do not have permission to open 
the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator 
for assistance” with a simple “OK” button.

HTH,

Roger 

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 6:20 PM, james--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Roger,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I?m trying to share with my wife on her 
>> iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment 
>> - Save Attachment?. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech
> 
> This list of menu options looks like those that appear if you are 
> right-clicking on an attachment in Mail.
> 
> The right-click menu being referred to here is only available when you are in 
> the Finder.
> So the app you sent to your wife’s machine (apparently by Mail) needs to be 
> downloaded first. Then, in the Finder, locate the downloaded file and 
> right-click on it.
> 
> The menu that appears will have as the first two options “Open” and “Show 
> Package Contents”. 
> If the second option offered is not “Show Package Options” but “Open With” 
> then you have not transferred an app but a document (perhaps the LC stack?)
> 
> Try this with other apps and documents on your wife’s mac to confirm the two 
> types of option menus that come up.
> 
> Choosing “Open” for an application Finder context menu will, for unnotorized 
> apps, will then bring up the dlog asking if you really do want to open this 
> app. This only needs to be done the first time the app is opened.
> 
> James
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread james--- via use-livecode

Hi Roger,

You wrote:

> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I?m trying to share with my wife on her 
> iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment 
> - Save Attachment?. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech

This list of menu options looks like those that appear if you are 
right-clicking on an attachment in Mail.

The right-click menu being referred to here is only available when you are in 
the Finder.
So the app you sent to your wife’s machine (apparently by Mail) needs to be 
downloaded first. Then, in the Finder, locate the downloaded file and 
right-click on it.

The menu that appears will have as the first two options “Open” and “Show 
Package Contents”. 
If the second option offered is not “Show Package Options” but “Open With” then 
you have not transferred an app but a document (perhaps the LC stack?)

Try this with other apps and documents on your wife’s mac to confirm the two 
types of option menus that come up.

Choosing “Open” for an application Finder context menu will, for unnotorized 
apps, will then bring up the dlog asking if you really do want to open this 
app. This only needs to be done the first time the app is opened.

James

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Jim Lambert via use-livecode

> Richard G. wrote:
> 
>  I raise my whiskey 
> to toast your whisky.

Sláinte!

JIm Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Dev via use-livecode

So how are you getting it on to her machine? Drag and drop across the net in 
your house? Email? AirDrop?
Lets start from the beginning and sort this out, because I think you ought to 
be able to do it.

Kelly

> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 5:46 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I feel bad that you guys are sticking with me to no avail. Saving it first to 
> Downloads or Desktop does not work.
> 
> Sorry to be such a bother,
> 
> Roger
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 4:26 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed. Save to the desktop and then try the right click Open command. 
>> 
>> Kelly
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 5:04 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think the “attachment” is part of the issue.  Save to downloads first?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 6:00 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
  wrote:

 Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
 her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
 Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - 
 Speech

 Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
 response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
 have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
 computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
 button. Dead end as before!

 Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
 and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
 opening, I found nothing of the sort.

 So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
 building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
 solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
 reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
 stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
 Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….

 Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
 without the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, 
 family and colleagues.

 Roger

>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
> 
> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
> app.
> —
> Scott 

 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Richard Gaskin via use-livecode

Alex Tweedly wrote:

> On 27/03/2021 02:43, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
>> This makes the Community Edition a natural fit for a generic player,
>> since the proliferation the license explicitly encourages would be
>> very much with the grain of its goals.
>>
>> But then we have to ask: how many of those who might enjoy a generic
>> player embrace the GPL with the stacks they'd like to distribute it
>> with?
>
> hmmm - I don't get that bit.
>
> The generic player would be built with Community Edition - and hence
> must be GPL-compliant.
>
> However, the stacks it "plays" are merely documents. GPL is (afaiu)
> clear that documents viewed (or indeed created) by GPL apps are not
> covered by the GPL - i.e. it does not proliferate into the stacks.
> The stacks are not in any way derivative of the player.
>
> So I could build a stack with my Indy license, and distribute that
> under any restrictive licensing terms I choose, but use the CE/GPL
> compliant player app to run them.
>
> Of course, the source of the stacks would be visible, but there
> wouldn't seem to be any requirement on which licensing terms I apply
> to that stack.
>
> Or, I may be misunderstanding GPL again - I have done on many
> occasions since I first hired a developer to work on gcc back in the
> mid-80s :-)

The GPL is intentionally vague on what constitutes "derivative work" 
with regard to license inheritance, acknowledging the vast and 
ever-growing number of ways code can comingle at runtime.

LC's interpretation is similar to Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, and others 
which regard code running inside their process. Those CMS' regard all 
templates, plugins, widgets, themes, etc. as "derivative works" 
inheriting all rights and responsibilities of the CMS framework's GPL.

When in doubt about how any license applies to anything, it's always 
best to check with the owner of the property.  One of Mark Waddingham's 
more complete set of comments on GPL and LC Community is here:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2016-March/224276.html

The most relevant part may be this:

  If you don't wish to pay for a commercial license of some sort,
  then your option is to enter the GPL ecosystem of LiveCode
  Community and abide by its rules. If you do decide to pay for a
  commercial license then you can walk in both. I, personally,
  think that is entirely fair and reasonable.

So in a sense we're both right, at least as far as meeting the company's 
expectations:  As long as you maintain a current license to a 
proprietary edition, you can "walk in both"; if your license expires, 
distribution is GPL.

This still leaves two questions:

1. Can a proprietary licensee choose ANY license for stacks distributed 
with the GPL engine, or must it be at least GPL-compatible (such as MIT)?

2. What if I write something in a licensed proprietary edition this 
morning, distribute it for use with a Community engine this afternoon, 
and then let my proprietary LC license lapse tomorrow?  Does the license 
of what I've already sent out into the field somehow transform into GPL? 
How could any user know?

The simplest way to avoid any questions about attempting to mix license 
types is to simply not mix them.

GPL is pretty clear, and only becomes complex with efforts to circumvent 
its terms through mixing with other licenses.

Here I follow one simple rule:

I embrace the GPL where sharing under its terms is my goal; I avoid it 
where my goals are otherwise, including any potentially-gray area not 
already clarifed by the copyright owner.

> I won't even start on that until I've finished fulminating over your
> misspelling of whisky - but a response (or two) will come.

My family is from Ireland and I live in the States. I raise my whiskey 
to toast your whisky, in the kinship of two related but 
regionally-distinct liquors, each spelled correctly.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

I feel bad that you guys are sticking with me to no avail. Saving it first to 
Downloads or Desktop does not work.

Sorry to be such a bother,

Roger

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 4:26 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Agreed. Save to the desktop and then try the right click Open command. 
> 
> Kelly
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 5:04 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I think the “attachment” is part of the issue.  Save to downloads first?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 6:00 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
>>> her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
>>> Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - 
>>> Speech
>>> 
>>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
>>> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
>>> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” 
>>> button. Dead end as before!
>>> 
>>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
>>> and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
>>> opening, I found nothing of the sort.
>>> 
>>> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
>>> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
>>> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
>>> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
>>> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
>>> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks 
>>> without the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, 
>>> family and colleagues.
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
 right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
 app.
 —
 Scott 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Dev via use-livecode

Agreed. Save to the desktop and then try the right click Open command. 

Kelly

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 5:04 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think the “attachment” is part of the issue.  Save to downloads first?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 6:00 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on 
>> her iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look 
>> Attachment - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - 
>> Speech
>> 
>> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
>> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
>> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your 
>> computer or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. 
>> Dead end as before!
>> 
>> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security 
>> and Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
>> opening, I found nothing of the sort.
>> 
>> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
>> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
>> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
>> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
>> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
>> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
>> 
>> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks without 
>> the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, family and 
>> colleagues.
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
 On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
>>> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
>>> app.
>>> —
>>> Scott 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread Brian Milby via use-livecode

I think the “attachment” is part of the issue.  Save to downloads first?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 6:00 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on her 
> iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment 
> - Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech
> 
> Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same 
> response I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not 
> have permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer 
> or network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. Dead end 
> as before!
> 
> Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security and 
> Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time 
> opening, I found nothing of the sort. 
> 
> So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
> building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
> solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
> reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
> stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that 
> Apple (and Windows?) place before us. OTH….
> 
> Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks without 
> the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, family and 
> colleagues.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
>> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the 
>> app.
>> —
>> Scott 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Nope! Right clicking on a standalone I’m trying to share with my wife on her 
iMac w OS 11.2 results in this menu: Open Attachment - Quick Look Attachment - 
Save Attachment…. - Save to Downloads Folder - Share - Copy - Speech

Then, clicking on the “Open Attachment” menu item results in the same response 
I reported earlier: a simple screen with this message: You do not have 
permission to open the application “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or 
network administrator for assistance” with a simple “OK” button. Dead end as 
before!

Further, at Kelly's suggestion to try and adjust settings in the Security and 
Privacy System Preferences to downgrade standards to allow a one time opening, 
I found nothing of the sort. 

So at this point, I think Kelly’s idea of someone with Apple credentials 
building a certified standalone that runs stacks is the only short term 
solution. If it helps, I and probably others, would be willing to pay a 
reasonable fee for such gem. Otherwise, I and anyone else wanting to share 
stacks, will have to jump through the increasingly ridiculous hoops that Apple 
(and Windows?) place before us. OTH….

Ultimately, I really think that a LiveCodeLight app that runs stacks without 
the IDE would be the best way to go to share stacks with friends, family and 
colleagues.

Roger

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:24 AM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or 
> right click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the app.
> —
> Scott 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-28 Thread scott--- via use-livecode

Kelly is correct. While holding down the control key, click and hold (or right 
click) to get an additional menu allowing you to choose to open the app.
—
Scott 

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:33 PM, Dev via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger
> 
> On your wife’s machine - if you right click the app and choose Open from the 
> context menu, do you get more options about opening?
> 
> If you adjust settings in the Security and Privacy System Preferences can you 
> downgrade standards to allow a one time opening?
> 
> If neither of these work, then it seems that the player app will need to be 
> notarized and perhaps even stapled. If one of the already certified 
> developers were to make such an app using their credentials, perhaps the rest 
> of us could just download it from their site and play our own stacks with it. 
> 
> Interested in anyone else’s thoughts on work arounds to Apple’s security.
> 
> Kelly
> 
>> On 27 Mar, 2021, at 9:10 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Here is a report on the back door approach to opening a standalone on MAC OS 
>> 11.2:
>> 
>> I built a stack precisely as Jacqueline specified and made a Mac standalone 
>> of it. I checked to make sure it worked on my own computer. I then sent the 
>> standalone to my wife’s computer – another Mac running the same OS 11.2. 
>> Double-clicking the standalone on her computer, resulted is a simple screen 
>> with this message: You do not have permission to open the application 
>> “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for 
>> assistance” with a single “OK” button.
>> 
>> I then checked System Preferences - Security & Privacy - General Tab. There 
>> was no “Open Anyway” button.
>> 
>> Dead in the water! 
>> 
>> I humbly submit that we need a LiveCodeLight app from a certified developer 
>> that runs stacks without the IDE
>> 
>> Roge
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Dev via use-livecode

Roger

On your wife’s machine - if you right click the app and choose Open from the 
context menu, do you get more options about opening?

If you adjust settings in the Security and Privacy System Preferences can you 
downgrade standards to allow a one time opening?

If neither of these work, then it seems that the player app will need to be 
notarized and perhaps even stapled. If one of the already certified developers 
were to make such an app using their credentials, perhaps the rest of us could 
just download it from their site and play our own stacks with it. 

Interested in anyone else’s thoughts on work arounds to Apple’s security.

Kelly

> On 27 Mar, 2021, at 9:10 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is a report on the back door approach to opening a standalone on MAC OS 
> 11.2:
> 
> I built a stack precisely as Jacqueline specified and made a Mac standalone 
> of it. I checked to make sure it worked on my own computer. I then sent the 
> standalone to my wife’s computer – another Mac running the same OS 11.2. 
> Double-clicking the standalone on her computer, resulted is a simple screen 
> with this message: You do not have permission to open the application 
> “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for 
> assistance” with a single “OK” button.
> 
> I then checked System Preferences - Security & Privacy - General Tab. There 
> was no “Open Anyway” button.
> 
> Dead in the water! 
> 
> I humbly submit that we need a LiveCodeLight app from a certified developer 
> that runs stacks without the IDE
> 
> Roge
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones


Here is a report on the back door approach to opening a standalone on MAC OS 
11.2:

I built a stack precisely as Jacqueline specified and made a Mac standalone of 
it. I checked to make sure it worked on my own computer. I then sent the 
standalone to my wife’s computer – another Mac running the same OS 11.2. 
Double-clicking the standalone on her computer, resulted is a simple screen 
with this message: You do not have permission to open the application 
“StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for assistance” 
with a single “OK” button.

 I then checked System Preferences - Security & Privacy - General Tab. There 
was no “Open Anyway” button.

Dead in the water! 

I humbly submit that we need a LiveCodeLight app from a certified developer 
that runs stacks without the IDE

Roge



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Thanks, Scott. I will be testing all this in the next day or so and will report.

Roger


> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:56 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger,
> Yes, I believe it is on an individual app basis that occurs at the time the 
> app is being first opened.
> —
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:15 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Jacque,
>> 
>> You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember 
>> going thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door 
>> approach was closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, 
>> looking at my Security&Privacy tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do 
>> not see the “Open Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is 
>> it possible this button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to 
>> open an unauthorized app?
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Roger Guay wrote:
 
 In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
 Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
>>> 
>>> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
>>> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
>>> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
>>> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
>>> 
>>> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
>>> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to 
>>> make, basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button 
>>> script:
>>> 
>>> on mouseup
>>> answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>>> if it is empty then exit to top
>>> go stack it
>>> end mouseup
>>> 
>>> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
>>> 
>>> on openStack
>>> start using this stack
>>> end openStack
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired 
>>> build platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your 
>>> stacks need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be 
>>> limited to the inclusions your license permits.
>>> 
>>> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
>>> 
>>> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
>>> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the 
>>> blockage and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first 
>>> launch. There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized 
>>> app on big sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
>>> 
>>> Here's one for Mac OS: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And one for Windows: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build 
>>> a runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
>>> 
>>> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license 
>>> agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things 
>>> that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license 
>>> agreement; we all want LC to prosper.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Thank you, Richard for these responses . . . some of which I will have to 
consider for a while to better understand. But I still think this idea has 
merit, is very easy to do and maintain and makes Livecode even more attractive 
to prospective customers, especially those who require easy collaboration with 
colleagues

And BTW, I don’t care who builds it, but it seems a natural for RunRev.

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> >
> >> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
> >> in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
> >> how did that work?
> >
> > In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
> > Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
> > jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
> > someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
> > a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
> > that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
> > world again!
> >
> > I think my martini is showing...
> 
> After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
> enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.
> 
> In those days we made software for single users to run on a single computer 
> running one brand of OS.
> 
> The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for general 
> use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".
> 
> It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.
> 
> 
> The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors responding to an 
> evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected environments.
> 
> As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good and bad 
> actors alike.
> 
> My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched on this 
> in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as well:
> http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html
> 
> 
> 
> > This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
> > basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
> > downloadable from the mother ship.
> 
> Why specifically from the mother ship?
> 
> Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be willing 
> to see dropped so the company could commit to making and maintaining yet 
> another project?
> 
> In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the segment 
> who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current license, 
> resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.
> 
> And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
> promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained with 
> nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that more directly 
> feed their funnel.
> 
> Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and support 
> obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.
> 
> Free software isn't free to make and maintain.
> 
> 
> > LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
> > edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.
> >
> > Thanks, Brian for the idea.
> >
> > Is that a cool idea or what?
> 
> Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less here).
> 
> The close of that post suggested this might make a good community project, 
> and described how simple it could be if anyone here really wanted something 
> that rudimentary.
> 
> But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be with 
> Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any subsequent 
> reply:
> 
> How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense their 
> works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the GPL-governed 
> Community Edition.
> 
> And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium offer, how 
> many projects might one want to distribute with a player which use absolutely 
> none of any features found only in the proprietary editions, Indy and 
> Business?
> 
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> 
> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/l

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Alex Tweedly via use-livecode




On 27/03/2021 02:43, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
This makes the Community Edition a natural fit for a generic player, 
since the proliferation the license explicitly encourages would be 
very much with the grain of its goals.


But then we have to ask: how many of those who might enjoy a generic 
player embrace the GPL with the stacks they'd like to distribute it with? 


hmmm - I don't get that bit.

The generic player would be built with Community Edition - and hence 
must be GPL-compliant.


However, the stacks it "plays" are merely documents. GPL is (afaiu) 
clear that documents viewed (or indeed created) by GPL apps are not 
covered by the GPL - i.e. it does not proliferate into the stacks. The 
stacks are not in any way derivative of the player.


So I could build a stack with my Indy license, and distribute that under 
any restrictive licensing terms I choose, but use the CE/GPL compliant 
player app to run them.


Of course, the source of the stacks would be visible, but there wouldn't 
seem to be any requirement on which licensing terms I apply to that stack.


Or, I may be misunderstanding GPL again - I have done on many occasions 
since I first hired a developer to work on gcc back in the mid-80s :-)


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread scott--- via use-livecode

Roger,
Yes, I believe it is on an individual app basis that occurs at the time the app 
is being first opened.
—
Scott

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:15 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jacque,
> 
> You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember 
> going thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door 
> approach was closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, 
> looking at my Security&Privacy tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do not 
> see the “Open Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is it 
> possible this button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to 
> open an unauthorized app?
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Roger Guay wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
>>> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
>> 
>> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
>> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
>> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
>> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
>> 
>> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
>> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, 
>> basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button script:
>> 
>> on mouseup
>> answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>> if it is empty then exit to top
>> go stack it
>> end mouseup
>> 
>> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
>> 
>> on openStack
>> start using this stack
>> end openStack
>> 
>> 
>> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build 
>> platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks 
>> need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be limited 
>> to the inclusions your license permits.
>> 
>> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
>> 
>> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
>> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage 
>> and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first launch. 
>> There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized app on big 
>> sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
>> 
>> Here's one for Mac OS: 
>> 
>> 
>> And one for Windows: 
>> 
>> 
>> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build 
>> a runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
>> 
>> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license 
>> agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things 
>> that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license 
>> agreement; we all want LC to prosper.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Jacque,

You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember going 
thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door approach was 
closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, looking at my 
Security&Privacy tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do not see the “Open 
Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is it possible this 
button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to open an 
unauthorized app?

Roger



> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
>> 
>> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
>> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
> 
> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
> 
> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, 
> basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button script:
> 
> on mouseup
>  answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>  if it is empty then exit to top
>  go stack it
> end mouseup
> 
> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
> 
> on openStack
>  start using this stack
> end openStack
> 
> 
> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build 
> platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks 
> need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be limited to 
> the inclusions your license permits.
> 
> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
> 
> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage 
> and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first launch. 
> There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized app on big 
> sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
> 
> Here's one for Mac OS: 
> 
> 
> And one for Windows: 
> 
> 
> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build a 
> runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
> 
> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license agreement. 
> They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things that only a 
> licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license agreement; we all want 
> LC to prosper.
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode

Roger Guay wrote:

In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.

On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users how to get around
the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have adopted. If your users are just family
and friends, this is viable. Someone more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works
there.

Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed something,) but it
should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, basically a stack with one card and a
single button. The button script:

on mouseup
answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
if it is empty then exit to top
go stack it
end mouseup

Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:

on openStack
start using this stack
end openStack

That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build platform. Include
all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks need, or you think they might need in
the future. Your app will be limited to the inclusions your license permits.

Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.

Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by Apple or authorized
by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage and get the app to open. They only
need to do this once on first launch. There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open
unnotarized app on big sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."

Here's one for Mac OS:

And one for Windows:

This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build a runner app for
Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.

Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license agreement. They can't
reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things that only a licensed user can do. Please
don't violate the license agreement; we all want LC to prosper.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Alex Tweedly via use-livecode



On 27/03/2021 18:29, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched 
on this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as 
well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html

Not at all "too long to be read";  just too long to take in quickly and 
make coherent responses.


I won't even start on that until I've finished fulminating over your 
misspelling of whisky - but a response (or two) will come.


Alex.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Richmond via use-livecode


I despair . . . how could one lower oneself to two fingers of 'whiskey'?

Just now I am enjoying a glass of whisky (without the offending 'e').

Richmond.

On 27.03.21 20:29, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:

Roger Guay wrote:


On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:


What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
how did that work?


In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
world again!

I think my martini is showing...


After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.


In those days we made software for single users to run on a single 
computer running one brand of OS.


The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for 
general use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".


It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.


The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors 
responding to an evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected 
environments.


As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good 
and bad actors alike.


My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched 
on this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as 
well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html




This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
downloadable from the mother ship.


Why specifically from the mother ship?

Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be 
willing to see dropped so the company could commit to making and 
maintaining yet another project?


In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the 
segment who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current 
license, resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.


And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained 
with nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that 
more directly feed their funnel.


Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and 
support obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.


Free software isn't free to make and maintain.



LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.

Thanks, Brian for the idea.

Is that a cool idea or what?


Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less 
here).


The close of that post suggested this might make a good community 
project, and described how simple it could be if anyone here really 
wanted something that rudimentary.


But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be 
with Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any 
subsequent reply:


How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense 
their works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the 
GPL-governed Community Edition.


And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium 
offer, how many projects might one want to distribute with a player 
which use absolutely none of any features found only in the 
proprietary editions, Indy and Business?





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Richard Gaskin via use-livecode

Roger Guay wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
>> in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
>> how did that work?
>
> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
> jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
> someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
> a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
> that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
> world again!
>
> I think my martini is showing...

After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.

In those days we made software for single users to run on a single 
computer running one brand of OS.

The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for 
general use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".

It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.

The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors responding 
to an evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected environments.

As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good and 
bad actors alike.

My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched on 
this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html

> This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
> basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
> downloadable from the mother ship.

Why specifically from the mother ship?

Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be 
willing to see dropped so the company could commit to making and 
maintaining yet another project?

In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the 
segment who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current 
license, resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.

And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained with 
nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that more 
directly feed their funnel.

Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and 
support obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.

Free software isn't free to make and maintain.

> LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
> edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.
>
> Thanks, Brian for the idea.
>
> Is that a cool idea or what?

Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less here).

The close of that post suggested this might make a good community 
project, and described how simple it could be if anyone here really 
wanted something that rudimentary.

But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be 
with Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any 
subsequent reply:

How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense 
their works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the 
GPL-governed Community Edition.

And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium offer, 
how many projects might one want to distribute with a player which use 
absolutely none of any features found only in the proprietary editions, 
Indy and Business?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

A couple of things. The developer is not even required to build a standalone, 
and presumably it would be easier to strip out or hide the IDE of 
LiveCodeLight. Otherwise, either way is good.

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Richmond via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be the advantage of using stack 
> runner
> over a standalone?
> 
> Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Richmond via use-livecode

Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be the advantage of using 
stack runner

over a standalone?

Richmond.

On 27.03.21 19:27, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

Could be, but that requires you to be an Apple Developer. Too much hassle! A 
LiveCodeLight from RunRev that runs stacks without the IDE would be easier.

Roger



On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:18 AM, ELS Prothero via use-livecode 
 wrote:

I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
need an apple license to do even that?
Bill

William Prothero
https://earthlearningsolutions.org


On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Thanks for the confirmation.
Dave


On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
 wrote:

You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, Windows 
and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on your own 
computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc

Roger


On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
 wrote:

It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a license 
from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I made for my 
grandson and he only uses iOS devices.

I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?

Dave


On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Roger Guay wrote:

Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
.livecode files


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

Could be, but that requires you to be an Apple Developer. Too much hassle! A 
LiveCodeLight from RunRev that runs stacks without the IDE would be easier.

Roger


> On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:18 AM, ELS Prothero via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
> would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
> need an apple license to do even that?
> Bill
> 
> William Prothero
> https://earthlearningsolutions.org
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the confirmation.
>> Dave
>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, 
>>> Windows and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on 
>>> your own computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a 
 license from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I 
 made for my grandson and he only uses iOS devices.
 
 I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
 didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?
 
 Dave
 
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
>> Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
>> Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
>> of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
>> expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
>> distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
>> open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
>> .livecode files
> 
 
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

A few days ago, a very impressive post came in here from a researcher at an 
accelerator lab somewhere. I’ve lost the post and may have some details wrong. 
As I recall he was very complimentary of LiveCode as a tool for his work but 
was lamenting that he could no longer easily share his work with colleagues. 
The idea of a LiveCodeLight downloadable from RunRev that opens and runs stacks 
without the IDE, would go a long way to solving his problem. Much better than a 
web served approach, IMHO. 

But, what do I know?

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 9:34 AM, Robert J. Earp via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> But going back to you suggestion, as you know I think LC has totally lost 
> focus on what its heritage was, except maybe LC Server, if that still exists. 
>  If it does, you should be able to develop on whatever, deliver on a web 
> server with LC Server loaded, and anybody could run the project anywhere 
> there is a browser.  Or along with willy and nilly have I totally lost it, 
> which has been known on occasion !!

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread ELS Prothero via use-livecode

I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
need an apple license to do even that?
Bill

William Prothero
https://earthlearningsolutions.org

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.
> Dave
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, 
>> Windows and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on 
>> your own computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
 On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a 
>>> license from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I made 
>>> for my grandson and he only uses iOS devices.
>>> 
>>> I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
>>> didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
 On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 Roger Guay wrote:
> Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
> Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
> of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
> expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
> distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
> open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
> .livecode files
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

2021-03-27 Thread Robert J. Earp via use-livecode

I too remember the good ‘ol days Roger and in fact still have one of my 
eLearning shell projects that still runs stand-alone on both Catalina and 
Windows, although I’d have to check which version of Windows.  The project has 
stacks calling stacks and external media.  The MacOS stand-alone version is 
just a single file that I’ve shared without having to license from anybody, 
with what I’ve always assumed is  a runtime engine packaged in it some how.  
The Windows version has an .exe and the media and externals are in separate 
folders and again I assume it has the Rev engine.   I haven’t tried this with 
Big Sur.

But going back to you suggestion, as you know I think LC has totally lost focus 
on what its heritage was, except maybe LC Server, if that still exists.  If it 
does, you should be able to develop on whatever, deliver on a web server with 
LC Server loaded, and anybody could run the project anywhere there is a 
browser.  Or along with willy and nilly have I totally lost it, which has been 
known on occasion !!

best, Bob...

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 09:00, use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com wrote:
> 
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:45:21 -0700
> From: Roger Guay mailto:i...@mac.com>>
> To: How to use LiveCode  <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>
> Subject: Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones
> Message-ID:  <mailto:f25e115d-3799-47e3-ae4e-0ba0aad13...@mac.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac, Windows and 
> Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to jump thru intolerable 
> hoops (at least for the Mac) to give someone my standalone. if someone (hint. 
> . .hint) could build a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w 
> advertising that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the 
> world again! 
> 
> I think my martini is showing...
> 
> Roger
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days" in which one could 
>> run stack files without an engine, and how did that work?
> 

Robert (Bob) Earp
White Rock
British Columbia
Canada

m: +1 604 612 6688

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones